BV  825  . T95 

Tyson,  Stuart  Lawrence, 


\ 

1873 


The  eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


THE  EUCHARIST  IN 
ST.  PAUL 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •  BOSTON  •  CHICAGO  •  DALLAS 
ATLANTA  •  SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


THE  EUCHARIST  IN 
ST.  PAUL 


/  BV 

STUART  L.  TYSON,  M.A.  (OXON.) 


HONORARY  VICAR  OF  THE  CATHEDRAL 
OF  ST.  JOHN  THE  DIVINE,  NEW  YORK 


J12eto  iotfe 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1923 


All  rights  reserved 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


Copyright,  1923, 

By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  printed.  Published  May,  1923. 


Press  of 

J.  J.  Little  &  Ives  Company 
New  York,  U.  S.  A. 


FOREWORD 


This  monograph  is  the  first  publication  of  the 
Modern  Churchmen’s  Union.  It  will  be  appar¬ 
ent  at  once  that  it  has  been  prepared  primarily 
neither  for  scholars  nor  for  the  public  at  large. 
To  have  attempted  a  detailed  and  critical  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  central  rite  of  Christianity,  around 
which  during  the  centuries  have  gathered  discus¬ 
sions  and  controversies  innumerable,  was,  within 
the  limits  of  space  imposed  by  the  Committee, 
obviously  impossible.  And  as  the  professed  stu¬ 
dent  will  find  within  its  pages  but  little  to  stimu¬ 
late  his  thought,  so  the  members  of  the  different 
Churches  are  likely  to  experience  a  sense  of  dis¬ 
appointment  at  the  limitations  of  its  argument. 
It  has  been  written  chiefly  with  a  view  to  the 
problems  of  Anglicans;  to  meet  some  of  the 
intellectual  difficulties  confronting  the  parochial 
clergyman  and  the  educated  layman  of  that  Com¬ 
munion,  and  from  this  standpoint  it  should  be 
estimated. 


(Signed)  Stuart  L.  Tyson. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/eucharistinstpauOOtyso 


THE  EUCHARIST  IN 
ST.  PAUL 


THE  EUCHARIST  IN  ST.  PAUL 


Importance  of  St.  Paul’s  Witness.  St. 
Paul  is  the  earliest  writing  witness  to  Christian 
teaching  and  practice,  and  on  this  ground  alone 
his  words  have  a  unique  value.  It  is  not  always 
realized  by  Christian  people  that  our  earliest 
Gospel  was  probably  not  written  until  after  his 
death;  or  that  his  own  extant  letters  were  com¬ 
posed  during  a  period  of  not  more  than  twenty 
to  thirty-five  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  our 
Lord,  and  that  therefore  what  he  has  left  us  con¬ 
stitute  very  nearly  “contemporary”  witness. 

His  References  to  the  Eucharist  Found 
Only  in  I  Corinthians.  Assuming  for  our  pres¬ 
ent  purpose  that  thirteen  of  the  letters  in  the  New 
Testament  were  written  by  him,  it  is  surprising, 
to  say  the  least,  in  view  of  the  place  occupied  by 
the  Eucharist  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  that 
in  only  one  is  there  any  mention  of  it.  To  the 
possible  reason  for  this  we  must  return  later: 


2 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


merely  stating  here  that  I  Cor.  x,  14-22,  xi,  17- 
34,  and  (probably)  xiv,  16  are  the  only  refer¬ 
ences  to  the  subject  in  any  of  the  Epistles  credited 
to  him.  In  order  properly  to  understand  these 
passages,  it  becomes  of  great  importance  to  gain 
a  clear  idea  of  the  character  of  the  Corinthian 
Church,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
words  were  written. 

The  Foundation  of  the  Church  in  Cor¬ 
inth,  A.  D.  50-51.  St.  Paul  had  founded  the 
Church  in  Corinth  on  the  second  of  his  three 
missionary  journeys,  50-51  A.  D.1  During  his 
eighteen  months’  stay  in  what  was  perhaps  the 
worst  of  the  Graeco-Roman  cities,  where  moral 
life  was  at  so  low  an  ebb  that  the  Greeks  them¬ 
selves  had  coined  the  verb  “Corinthiazomai”  as 
a  euphemism  for  all  that  is  unspeakable  in  human 
nature,  he  had  won  to  Christ  a  goodly  number 
from  among  its  inhabitants,  the  majority  of  the 
converts  being  Gentiles,  with  a  not  inconsiderable 
admixture  of  Jews.  Among  the  upper  classes, 
however,  he  had  had  but  indifferent  success.  A 
few,  but  “not  many  wise  after  the  flesh,  not  many 
mighty,  not  many  high  born”  had  entered  the  new 


1Acts  xviii,  iff. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


3 


Society.2  For  the  most  part,  in  this  city  which  so 
deeply  prided  itself  on  its  culture  and  varied  wis¬ 
dom,  the  Church  was  made  up  of  members  of  the 
lowest  social  stratum.  The  general  context  of  the 
letter  makes  it  clear,  however,  that  from  whatever 
class  they  were  drawn,  on  coming  into  the  Church 
not  a  few  had  washed  themselves  from  well-nigh 
unimaginable  moral  foulness.3 

A.D.  55.  The  Occasion  for  Writing 
I  Corinthians,  i.  To  deal  with  disorders  in 
the  Church.  Some  four  years  have  passed  away 
since  the  founding  of  the  Church,  and  with  them 
the  early  fervour  of  conversion.  To  St.  Paul, 
just  finishing  a  three  years’  stay  at  Ephesus,4 
comes  very  disquieting  news  of  this  youthful  par¬ 
ish.  Some  members  of  the  household  of  a  Cor¬ 
inthian  (?)  lady  named  Chloe  bring  him  word,5 
not  only  of  a  profound  abatement  of  early  zeal, 
but  that  the  gravest  moral  disorders  have  broken 
out  among  the  parishioners,  and  all  was  tending 
toward  a  return  to  the  status  quo  ante.  In  par¬ 
ticular,  there  had  arisen  and  developed  a  hideous 
party  spirit:6  an  unspeakable  case  of  immorality 

*  I  Cor.  i,  26.  6  i,  11. 

*  vi,  11.  ®i,  nff. 

4xvi,  8,  with  Acts  xx,  31. 


4 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


had  not  simply  been  condoned  but  was  actually 
extolled  as  an  illustration  of  Christian  liberty:7 
fierce  quarrels  which  had  broken  out  had  been 
carried  to  heathen  law  courts.8  The  unseemly 
conduct  of  women  in  their  assemblies 9  was 
matched  and  exceeded  by  the  gross  excesses  and 
profanation  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.10  The  very 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  employed,  not  with  a  view 
to  the  building  up  of  character,  but  for  purposes 
of  vain-glorious  ostentation.11  Many  of  the 
communicants,  who  had  returned  to  attendance  at 
the  heathen  religious  festivals,  saw  no  incongruity 
in  coming  afterwards  to  the  Lord’s  Table.12 

2.  To  answer  a  letter  from  the  Corinthians. 
A  group  of  these  Corinthians  had  sent  the  Apostle 
a  letter,13  asking  him  to  solve  for  them  a  number 
of  difficult  questions  about  which  they  were  per¬ 
plexed.  Thus  they  desired  to  know  whether,  in 
view  of  the  near  return  of  Christ,  marriage  was 
right;  14  and  if  so,  whether  mixed  marriages  were 
to  be  allowed.15  Was  it  right  to  eat  meat  of- 

Tv,  iff. 

8  vi,  iff. 

9xi,  2ff. 

10  xi,  iyff. 

uxiv,  iff. 


12  x,  i4ff. 
13vii,  i. 
14vii,  iff. 
15vii,  I2ff. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


5 


fered  to  idols?  16  What  was  the  proper  dress  of 
men  and  women  at  their  meetings?  17  What  was 
the  relative  value  of  spiritual  gifts?18  What 
would  be  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body?  19 
How  were  they  to  collect  money  for  the  needy 
“saints”  at  Jerusalem?20  Might  Apollos  come 
back  to  them  ?  21 

Summary  of  the  Apostle’s  Purpose  in 
Writing.  It  was  to  meet  these  dual  conditions 
that  St.  Paul  wrote  I  Corinthians.  His  object 
was  not  only  to  recall  the  Church  to  a  sense  of  its 
corporate  unity  and  of  its  separateness  from  the 
heathen  world,  but  also  to  show  its  members 
that  the  only  criterion  for  deciding  difficult  ques¬ 
tions  was  “loving  kindness”  and  that  which  had 
a  tendency  to  build  up  the  character  of  others. 
Throughout  the  letter,  in  one  way  or  another, 
runs  the  thought,  “Flee  from  idolatry.” 

St.  Paul's  Account  of  the  Institution  of 
the  Eucharist.  Before  proceeding  to  exam¬ 
ine  St.  Paul’s  teaching  on  the  Eucharist  in  detail, 
it  may  be  well  to  look  briefly  at  his  account  of 
the  Institution,  as  contained  in  chapter  xi,  23-25. 

10  viii,  iff.  19  xv,  35ff. 

17  xi,  2ff.  Mxvi,  iff. 

18xii,  iff.  “xvi,  12. 


6 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


“I  received  as  a  trust  from  the  Lord,”  he  says, 
“that  which  as  a  trust  I  also  delivered  unto  you.” 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  twice  repeated 
preposition  22  has  a  real  significance.  The  Eu¬ 
charist  is  not  something  with  which  men  may  play 
fast  and  loose.  The  Corinthians,  no  less  than 
St.  Paul,  are  trustees;  as,  in  recalling  his 
original  teaching  to  this  Church  some  four  years 
previously,  he  now  reminds  them.  The  content 
of  this  trust,  he  says,  he  received  “from  the 
Lord.”  “Through  what  medium?”  one  asks  at 
once ;  for  the  term  employed 23  simply  tells  us 
the  “whence,”  in  a  wide  and  general  sense.  Al¬ 
though  St.  Paul  affirms,  e.g.f  in  Gal.  i,  1 1,  12,  that 
the  Gospel  which  he  preached  was  not  received 
by  him  from  man,  “neither  was  I  taught  it,  but 
it  came  to  me  through  a  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ,”  this  does  not  mean  that  he  did  not  learn 
the  facts  of  Christ’s  life  from  those  who  were 
Christians  before  him.  It  was  the  significance 
of  those  facts,  e.g.f  that  “Christ  is  the  termina¬ 
tion  of  law  unto  righteousness  to  everyone  that  be- 

23  “IIap4Xa/3ov,  xapiStoxa.  but  uniform  use  in  Paul.” 
'napa>.a[x/3(5:vo).  .  .  ‘to  receive  Burton  on  Gal.  i,  12. 
something  transmitted  to  one’  **  ITapd 
.  .  .  is  the  uniform,  or  all 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


7 


lieveth” : 24  that  “in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circum¬ 
cision  availeth  anything  nor  uncircumcision,  but 
faith  energizing  through  love”:25  that  “the 
whole  law  is  fulfilled  in  one  word,  even  in  this; 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,” 26 
which  had  come  to  him  solely  from  his  inner 
fellowship  with  the  Lord.  Hence  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  he  means  here  to  ex¬ 
clude  older  Christians  as  the  medium  of  his 
information. 

His  Date  for  the  Institution.  It  is  inter¬ 
esting  to  note  the  way  in  which  he  dates  the  In¬ 
stitution.  It  was  “in  the  night  in  which  He  was 
being  betrayed.”  27  There  is  no  reference  to  the 
Passover,  as  in  the  Synoptists;  and  its  absence 
here,  as  well  as  the  identification  of  Christ  with 
the  paschal  lamb  in  v,  7,  and  the  apparent  syn¬ 
chronizing  of  a  ceremony  of  Nisan  16  with  the 
resurrection  on  the  third  day  28,  seem  to  indicate 
that  St.  Paul,  like  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gos¬ 
pel  29  and  the  early  Church,  puts  the  date  of  the 
Last  Supper  on  Nisan  14,  or  twenty  four  hours 

34  Rom.  x,  4.  perfect. 

35  Gal.  v,  6.  28  xv,  20. 

36  Gal.  v,  14.  39  e.g.,  John  xiii,  29,  xviii, 

*  7capeB(BoTo,  graphic  im-  28. 


8 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


earlier  than  the  Synoptists.  The  latter  bear  indi¬ 
rect  testimony  themselves  to  the  fact  that  our 
Lord  really  did  hold  the  Supper  a  day  prior  to 
the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb.  For  the  events 
which  they  describe  as  happening  on  the  same 
(Jewish)  day  would  have  been  impossible  on 
Nisan  15.  As  Sanday  well  says:30  “The 
events  of  the  night  would  involve  sacrilege 
for  a  devout  Jew.  On  such  a  holy  day  it  was  not 
allowed  to  bear  arms;  and  yet  Peter  is  armed, 
and  the  servants  of  the  High  Priest,  if  not  them¬ 
selves  armed,  accompany  an  armed  party.  Then 
we  have  the  hurried  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin 
who,  according  to  the  Synoptic  version,  would 
have  just  risen  from  the  paschal  meal.  Jesus  is 
taken  to  the  praetorium  of  the  Roman  Governor, 
to  enter  which  would  cause  defilement,  and  that 
on  the  most  sacred  day  of  the  feast.  Simon  of 
Cyrene  is  represented  as  coming  in  from  the  coun¬ 
try,  which  though  perhaps  not  necessarily  imply¬ 
ing  a  working  day,  looks  more  like  it  than  a  day 
treated  as  a  sabbath.  The  haste  with  which  the 
bodies  were  taken  down  from  the  cross  is  ac¬ 
counted  for  by  the  sanctity  of  a  day  that  is  about 

80  The  Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  154. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


9 


to  begin,  not  of  one  that  is  just  ending  (Mark 
xv,  42).  If  it  had  been  the  latter,  Joseph  of 
Arimathasa  could  not  have  ‘bought’  the  linen 
cloth  in  which  the  body  was  laid.” 

Did  Christ  Use  Leavened  or  Unleavened 
Bread?  If  this  earlier  date  be  accepted — and  it 
would  appear  as  though  we  must  accept  it — we 
have  no  way  of  knowing  whether  the  ‘loaf’,31 
which  Jesus  took  was  leavened  or  unleavened. 
This  is  a  small  enough  matter  in  itself,  yet  the 
question  shook  the  Church  many  centuries  ago. 
Its  consideration  has  by  analogy  an  important 
bearing  upon  the  contents  of  the  cup,  which  is 
still  a  matter  of  much  moment  to  many  today. 
If  the  Synoptists  are  correct  as  to  the  dating  of 
the  Supper,  the  loaf  was  without  question  un¬ 
leavened,  since  by  Jewish  law  no  particle  of 
panary  ferment  was  allowed  in  one’s  house  after 
— at  the  latest — noon  on  the  previous  Jewish 
day.  But,  as  is  most  probable,  if  the  Eucharist 
was  instituted  twenty-four  hours  earlier,  then  it 
would  depend  wholly  upon  local  circumstances  in 
that  particular  house  in  Jerusalem  whether  it  was 
fermented  or  unfermented.  For  while  the  search 


"  (JfpTOS 


IO  The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 

for  panary  ferment,  with  a  view  to  its  destruc¬ 
tion,  had  already  begun,  it  was  not  required  to  be 
completed  until  noon  on  the  following  day. 
Hence  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  host  had  some 
fermented  loaves  still  in  the  house,  which  he 
might  well  have  made  use  of  for  so  many  guests. 
It  is  equally  possible  that  he  might  already  have 
destroyed  the  old  leaven,  and  finished  his  baking 
for  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  In  early  days 
the  Church  used  leavened  bread  in  accordance 
with  the  implications  of  St.  Paul  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  a  practice  continued  to  this  day  in  the 
East.  In  the  West,  however,  after  the  influence 
of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel  with  its  later  day  for  the 
Institution  had  become  supreme,  the  authorities 
began  to  employ  unleavened  bread,  and  still  later 
abandoned  the  one  loaf  of  the  Last  Supper,  in 
favor  of  individual  wafers. 

The  Meaning  of  “Gave  Thanks.”  St. 
Paul  goes  on  to  say  that  Jesus  having  taken  the 
loaf — according  to  St.  Mark  it  was  “as  they  were 
eating,”  32  i.e.y  in  the  midst  of  the  meal — “gave 
thanks”  33  over  it,  which,  as  may  be  seen  from  a 
comparison  with  I  Cor.  x,  16  and  St.  Mark  xiv, 


83  Mark  xiv,  22. 


88  eOxaptoT^oa?. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


II 


22,  is  equivalent  to  “blessed”  34  or  “consecrated.” 
That  is,  Jesus  offered  over  the  loaf  a  blessing 
which  took  the  form  of  a  thanksgiving.  The 
original  of  these  verbs  supplied  two  of  the  earli¬ 
est  names  for  the  service,  Eulogia  and  Eucharist, 
which  are  transliterations,  respectively,  of  the 
Greek  words  for  Blessing  and  Thanksgiving. 

The  Words  Used  by  Christ  in  Blessing 
the  Loaf  and  Cup  Are  Unknown.  It  is  im¬ 
portant  to  note  that  neither  here  nor  in  any 
Synoptic  account,  are  the  actual  words  given,  by 
which  the  Lord  “blessed”  either  the  bread  or 
the  cup.  The  complete  silence  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  as  to  this,  coupled  with  the  highly  varied 
practice  of  the  early  Church,  affords  conclusive 
evidence  that  no  one  single  “form”  is  necessary 
to  the  due  observance  of  the  rite.  The  Didache , 
or  “The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,”  the 
earliest  extant  Church  manual,  which  dates  prob¬ 
ably  not  later  than  125  A.  D.,  provides  a  form 
to  be  said  over  the  cup  and  the  bread  respectively, 
although  “the  prophets”  are  definitely  allowed  to 
use  what  form  they  will.35  That  for  the  cup, 
which  comes  first,  is  as  follows:  “We  give  thee 

“Mark  xiv,  22,  eOXoYrjaa?.  85  Toe?  SI  xpo<pT)Tat?  exit  pi- 

xsts^  eOxapeareiv  8aa  OeXouciv. 


12 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


thanks,  O  our  Father,  for  the  holy  vine  of  thy 
son  36  David,  which  thou  madest  known  unto  us 
through  thy  Son  37  Jesus :  Thine  is  the  glory  for 
ever  and  ever.”  And  over  the  bread:  “We  give 
thee  thanks,  O  our  Father,  for  the  life  and 
knowledge  which  thou  didst  make  known  unto 
us  through  thy  Son  37  Jesus:  thine  is  the  glory 
for  ever  and  ever.  As  this  broken  bread  was 
scattered  upon  the  mountains  and  being  gathered 
together  became  one,  so  may  thy  Church  be  gath¬ 
ered  together  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  into  thy 
kingdom :  for  thine  is  the  glory  and  the  power 
through  Jesus  Christ  for  ever  and  ever.”  Justin 
Martyr,  writing  a  few  years  later,  says  38  that  the 
‘president’ 39  “gives  thanks  over  the  bread  and 
wine  to  the  best  of  his  ability.”  40 

Later  Speculations  as  to  Consecration. 
A  word  should  be  said  about  later  speculations 
as  to  the  formulas  of  consecration.  Thus  Basil 
of  Caesarea,  writing  about  374  A.  D.,  asks,41 
“Which  of  the  saints  has  left  us  in  writing  the 
words  of  the  invocation  at  the  displaying  of  the 

89  ToO  xatSoq  aou.  89  6  xpo^arox;. 

87  ToO  IIatS6q  aou.  40  oar)  Suvapuq  auT<p. 

“  A pol.  i,  65,  66.  n  de  Spiritu  Sancto,  27. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


13 


Eucharist  and  the  cup  of  blessing?  For  we,  not 
content  with  what  the  Apostle  or  the  Gospel  has 
recorded,  both  in  the  preface  and  conclusion  add 
other  words.”  Gregory  the  Great  affirms  42  that 
the  Apostles  used  the  Lord’s  Prayer  in  conse¬ 
crating  and  that  only!43  This  belief  had  as  its 
sequel  the  addition  of  the  Pater  Noster  to  the 
Canon  of  the  Mass,  where  it  is  still  to  be  found. 
Of  the  later  Western  teaching,  that  the  neces¬ 
sary  “form”  consists  of  the  recitation  of  the 
words  “Hoc  est  Corpus  meum  ”  “Hie  est  Calix 
Sanguinis  mei  ”  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  what¬ 
ever  words  Christ  used  they  could  not  have  been 
these,  inasmuch  as  they  were  addressed,  not  to 
God  during f  but  to  His  friends  after  the  bless¬ 
ing,  as  He  was  in  the  act  of  giving  them  the 
(already)  consecrated  bread  and  wine.  The 
best  defence  that  can  be  made  for  the  Latin 
teaching — and  in  sober  truth  it  is  little — will 
perhaps  be  found  in  the  Summa  Theologica 
of  Thomas  Aquinas.44  A  relic  of  this  medi- 

“Migne,  Fair.  Lat.,  LXXVIII,  Art.  I,  particularly 
LXXVII,  Col.  957.  his  reply  ad  primum,  which 

43  ad  ipsam  solummodo  ora-  is  an  interesting  study  in 

tionem.  scholastic  syntactical  method. 

44  Pars  Tertia,  Quaestio 


14 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


eval  teaching  survives  in  the  rubrics  directing 
“the  manual  acts”  in  our  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.45 

The  Breaking  of  the  Loaf.  Following  the 
thanksgiving  or  blessing  Jesus  broke  the  loaf, 
and  said,  “This  is  my  body  which  is  for  you:  do 
this  in  remembrance  of  me.”  Whether  the  Frac- 
tio  panis,  an  act  prominent  in  every  Liturgy,  and 
one  which  gave  still  another  name  to  the  service, 
was  performed  only  that  each  person  present 
might  receive  a  portion,  or  possessed  a  symbolic 
meaning  as  well,  will  probably  always  remain  a 
matter  of  speculation.  The  earliest  Synoptist 
seems  clearly  to  suggest 46  that  it  was  for  the 
former  purpose  alone.  In  any  case,  as  has  been 
said  above,  the  words  which  followed  the  frac¬ 
tion  were  words  of  administration  addressed  not 
to  God  but  to  those  present  as  they  received  the 
blessed  portions  of  the  loaf.  For  the  present,  a 
discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  “This  is 
my  body  which  is  for  you”  47  will  be  deferred. 


45  For  a  brief  but  excellent 
summary  of  their  history  and 
significance,  cf.  Alcuin  Club 
Prayer  Book  Revision  Pam¬ 
phlets,  No.  IV. 


49  Mark  xiv,  22. 

47  In  the  true  text  there  is 
no  participle,  such  as 
“broken”  or  ‘given.”  These 
latter  were  early  glosses. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


15 


Following  both  the  bread  and  the  cup,  St.  Paul 
(and  possibly  St.  Luke)  affirms  that  our  Lord 
added,  “Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.”  48  As 
this  book  is  prepared  primarily  for  the  Modern 
Churchmen’s  Union:  and  as  the  meaning  of 
these  words  has  been  the  subject  of  much  discus¬ 
sion  among  members  of  the  Anglican  Com¬ 
munion,  it  may  be  well  to  examine  them  some¬ 
what  narrowly. 

The  Meaning  of  “Do  This.”  The  word 
here  translated  “do”  49  is  perhaps  the  most  fre¬ 
quently  recurring  verb  in  the  Greek  language,  and 
means  to  “do”  or  “make,”  but  by  some  is  con¬ 
stantly  affirmed  to  have  the  meaning  of  “offer  in 
sacrifice.”  What  appear  to  be  the  facts  in  the 
matter?  It  is  found  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament 
3238  times,  in  slightly  more  than  3200  instances 
with  the  general  sense  of  to  “do”  or  to  “make.” 
The  nineteen  or  more  exceptions  are  cases  where 
the  object  throws  back  a  particular  meaning  into 
the  verb,  and  so  defines  the  nature  of  the  “doing”  : 
just  as  in  English  “to  do  one’s  boots”  denotes, 
because  of  the  reflected  meaning  of  the  object, 

u  Touto  xoceiTe  dq  *rfjv  *  xoi£(d. 

dv&uvrjcriv. 


1 6  The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 

“to  polish  one’s  boots” :  “to  do  one’s  teeth” 
means  “to  brush  one’s  teeth,”  etc.  In  every  case 
the  derived  meaning  is  to  be  found,  not  in  the 
verb,  but  in  the  immediate  context.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  term  occurs  565  times,  of  which 
157  instances  are  in  St.  Luke  and  80  in  St.  Paul. 
The  fact  that  in  no  other  case  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  could  the  verb  possibly  be  rendered  by 
“offer  in  sacrifice”  may  very  easily  be  verified  by 
reference  to  a  Greek  concordance.  Nor  is  this 
because  the  New  Testament  writers  are  unable 
to  express  a  sacrificial  idea  when  they  so  desire. 
Thus  St.  Paul  says:60  “I  beseech  you  ...  to 
present 51  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy, 
acceptable  to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable 
service.”  Almost  every  word  here  is  of  a  sac¬ 
rificial  nature.  Or  St.  Peter:52  “Ye  also,  as  liv¬ 
ing  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house,  a  holy 
priesthood,  to  offer  up  53  spiritual  sacrifices”;  St. 
John:54  “The  hour  cometh  that  whosoever  kill- 
eth  you  shall  think  that  he  offereth  55  service  unto 
God”;  Heb. : 56  “Christ  also,  having  been  once 

“Rom.  xii,  i.  81  John  xvi,  2. 

81  xapaoTYjoat,  not  xocrjaai.  88  xpoa<pdpeiv,  not  xoteiv. 

82 1  Peter,  ii,  5.  80  ix,  28. 

88  dvev^Y* at,  not  xorrjaai 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


17 


offered”  57  etc.  St.  Matthew:58  “If,  therefore, 
thou  art  offering  59  thy  gift  at  the  altar,”  etc.  St. 
Mark:60  “Go  thy  way,  show  thyself  to  the 
priest,  and  offer61  for  thy  cleansing,”  etc.  It 
seems  incredible,  therefore,  that  had  St.  Paul 
conceived  our  Lord’s  Aramaic  word  to  mean 
“offer  in  sacrifice,”  he  should  have  selected  as  its 
Greek  equivalent  a  colorless  term  which  he  uni¬ 
versally  employs  in  the  seventy-eight  remaining 
instances  in  his  letters  in  its  ordinary  sense  of 
“do”  or  “make.”  In  his  two  letters  to  this 
Church  he  uses  this  same  verb  twenty-one  times : 
by  what  miracle  of  penetration  were  the  Corin¬ 
thians  to  know  that  in  these  two  verses  he  meant 
it  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  he  nowhere  else 
employs?  It  is  not  as  if  it  were  followed  by  a 
word  denoting  sacrifice,  which  would  reflect  its 
meaning  upon  the  verb  and  so  define  the  “doing” 
as  “offering  in  sacrifice.”  It  is  here  followed  by 
a  neuter  pronoun,62  which  can  only  mean  “this 
thing”  or  “this  action.”  The  case  is  utterly  dif¬ 
ferent  from  one  of  those  rare  instances  in  the 
Greek  Old  Testament,  as  e.g.,  Numbers  xxix,  2, 

67  xpocevexQsk,  not  xocrj0e£<;  60  i,  44. 

68  v,  23.  81  xpoadveYxe,  not  xofyaov. 

“  xpoa<f>4pfl<;,  not  xotfis.  63  touto. 


1 8  The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 

“Ye  shall  offer  a  burnt  offering 63  for  a  sweet 
savour  unto  the  Lord,”  where  the  Hebrew  term 
for  “offer”  is  properly  rendered  by  this  Greek 
verb,  because  of  the  sacrificial  meaning  of  its  fol¬ 
lowing  object:  there  are  not,  however,  thirty 
such  instances  among  the  more  than  thirty-two 
hundred  occurrences  of  the  verb  in  the  Septua- 
gint.  No  Greek  Father,  with  the  possible  ex¬ 
ception  of  Justin  Martyr,64  ever  understood  the 
word  in  the  passage  under  discussion  as  meaning 
other  than  “perform  this  action”:  that  is,  “thus 
take  a  loaf,  bless  it,  break  it,”  etc.  The  witness 
of  all  the  Liturgies,  Eastern  and  Western,  is  to 
the  same  effect.  They  never  employ  either  this 
verb  or  its  Latin  equivalent  facere  when  the 
bread  and  wine  are  offered,  but  always  the  reg¬ 
ular  Greek  or  Latin  sacrificial  term.  In  the 
Reformation  period,  however,  two  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  writers,  Clichtovius  and  Ambrosius  Cath- 
arinus,  imported  into  it  the  meaning  of  “offer 
this  in  sacrifice” ;  and  this  thought  of  theirs  reg¬ 
ularly  reappears  in  Anglican  literature.65  But 
the  idea  was  born  only  of  the  exigencies  of  con- 

“  xocirjaeTe  iXoxauTrco^ara.  85  e.g.  Darv^ell  Stone,  “The 

w  Try.  XLI,  LXX.  Holy  Communion,”  p.  30. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


19 


troversy,  in  which  Clichtovius  and  Ambrosius 
Catharinus  were  engaged,  and  was  at  once  repu¬ 
diated  by  the  best  Roman  Catholic  scholars,  such 
as  Bellarmine,66  Maldonatus  and  Estius,  the  last 
of  whom  says 67  that  so  forced  a  meaning  is 
“plainly  beyond  the  mind  of  Scripture,”  or  as  he 
adds  a  line  or  two  lower  down,68  “facere  ( i.e .  the 
Latin  equivalent  of  the  Greek  word  for  ‘do’) 
can  never,  without  forcing  its  meaning,  be  ren¬ 
dered  by  sacrificare.), 

The  Meaning  of  “in  Remembrance  of 
Me.”  Let  us  now  consider  the  phrase  “in  re¬ 
membrance  of  me,”69  which  is  also  recurrently 
affirmed  to  carry  the  meaning  of  an  objective 
memorial.  The  Greek  term  translated  “remem¬ 
brance”  70  is  a  passive  (or  reflexive)  verbal  noun, 
and  denotes  “a  calling  to  mind,”  “a  recollection.” 
Both  Plato  and  Aristotle  distinguish  between 
“memory” 71  and  “recollection,” 72  the  former 
being  conceived  as  instinctive  and  common  to 
beasts  and  men,  while  the  latter  is  “the  reviving 

68  “Catholici  non  tarn,  in-  coacte  per  tsacrificare>  potest 
eptiy  exponi. 

87  in  Pauli  Epp.  Vol.  I,  p.  60  eiq  rrjv  e^v  dvd^vYjacv. 

618;  “plane  praeter  mentem  70  dvdp,viqat<;. 

Scripturae.”  n  hvt)P.t]. 

88  ‘ facere *  nequaquam  nisi  ”  dvdimjoi<;. 


20 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


of  faded  impressions  by  a  distinct  act  of  the  will, 
the  reflex,  at  the  bidding  of  the  mind,  of  knowl¬ 
edge  which  has  once  ebbed,”  and  therefore  proper 
to  man  only.  Thus  Plato  73  pictures  the  latter 
term  as  connoting  “the  inflow  of  perception 
which  has  faded,”  and  with  him  agree  almost 
verbally  both  Aristotle 74  and  the  Alexandrian 
Jew  Philo.  A  later  Platonist75  defines  it  as  “the 
new  birth  or  recovery  of  knowledge,”  and  a 
writer  of  the  fifth  century  B.C. 76  employs  it  to 
denote  “a  recollection  of  vows  to  pay  sacri¬ 
fices.”  77  While  the  term  occurs  frequently  in 
Jewish  and  classical  treatises,  the  present  writer 
has  found  no  instances  where  it  bears  other  than 
the  above  meaning.  It  is  found  five  times  in  the 
Greek  Old  Testament,  twice  in  the  Pentateuch,78 
twice  in  Psalm  titles,79  and  once  in  “Wisdom.”  80 
In  the  New  Testament,  outside  of  its  three 81 
(  ?)  occurrences  in  connection  with  the  Eucharist, 
it  is  found  only  in  Heb.  x,  3,  where  its  meaning 
is  unmistakably  clear.  There  the  author  is  en- 


73  de  Legg.  V,  732b. 

78  Lev.  xxiv,  7,  Numb,  x,  10. 

74  e.g.,  de  Hist.  Anim.  I, 

i,  79  Pss.  37,  69. 

15- 

80  xvi,  6. 

78  Olympiodorus. 

81 1  Cor.  xi,  24,  25.  There 

78  Lycias. 

is  some  doubt  as  to  the  gen¬ 

n  dcvap.vf;aei<;  0uacd>v. 

uineness  of  Luke  xxii,  19,  20. 

The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


21 


deavoring  to  show  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices, 
which  by  their  very  repetition  revealed  their 
inefficacy,  had  nevertheless  served  an  important 
and  indeed  divinely  appointed  purpose.  For  they 
had  kept  alive  the  sense  of  sin.  “In  them,”  he 
says,  “there  is  a  recollection  of  sins  every  year: 82 
for,”  as  he  immediately  adds,  “it  is  impossible  for 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  to  take  away  sin.” 
The  Jewish  sacrifices,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Alex¬ 
andrian  author,  were  instituted  with  a  view  to 
a  recollection  of  sin :  for  the  purpose  of  keeping 
alive  the  sense  of  responsibility.  The  Eucharist 
was  given,  according  to  the  tradition  received 
by  St.  Paul,  “for  the  purpose  of  recalling  me 83 
to  mind”;  with  the  object  of  continually  bring¬ 
ing  home  to  man’s  heart  the  true  significance  of 
the  life  and  death  of  Christ.  But  the  term  ap¬ 
parently  is  never  used  objectively,  nor  indeed 
does  it  appear  that  it  could  be.  There  is  a  Greek 
word  which  has  this  meaning,84  and  it  is  found  in 
the  New  Testament.85  An  angel  tells  Cornelius 
that  his  “prayers  and  his  alms  are  gone  up  for  a 
memorial 86  before  God,”  i.e they  “put  God  in 

82  ’Ev  auxaTq  apuzp-  84  p.vr)p.6auvov. 

Titov  xax’  Ivtauxdv.  85  Acts  x,  5. 

88  intensive.  88  e{<£pt.vT]pi.6auvov. 


22  The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 

mind”  of  him  who  offered  them.  And  this  is  the 
word  regularly  used  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament 
— occurring  seventy-one  times — for  that  part  of 
the  sacrifice  which  was  burned  on  the  altar  and 
went  up  to  God  to  “put  Him  in  mind”  of  His 
worshipper.  When  the  Church  had  come  to  con¬ 
ceive  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice  it  began  to 
employ  this  term,  which  is  of  frequent  occur¬ 
rence  in  the  Liturgies,  to  express  the  sacrificial 
memorial  before  God.  But  it  is  not  the  word 
used  by  St.  Paul.  Two  illustrations  of  Christian 
writers’  use  of  the  term  may  be  cited,  one  from 
Justin  Martyr,  the  other  from  the  last  of  the 
Greek  Fathers).  They  are  typical.  Justin  (c. 
150  A.D.)  explains  87  the  word  as  that  “whereby 
the  Passion  of  the  Son  of  God,  which  He  under¬ 
went  for  men,  is  brought  to  mind.”  88  Euthemius 
Zigabenus  (c.1115  A.D.)  thus  expands 89  St. 
Luke’s  “Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.”  “Do 
this,  the  new  mystery,  the  Lord  says,  and  not  the 
old.  For  the  latter  offering  was  to  call  to  mind 
the  deliverance  of  the  Hebrew  first-born,  even 

8T  Migne,  Pair.  Gr.  VI,  Col.  89  in  Quatt  Evang.  Vol.  I, 
745f*  P-  1019.  Lipsiae,  1792. 

88  1%*  &va[i.YT]aei .  .  .  iv  fj  .  .  . 

(X^IAVTJTOCC. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


23 

their  freedom:  but  this  is  to  recall  the  Master 
to  mind.  For  through  such  a  sacrifice  as  this  we 
are  reminded  90  that  His  body  was  delivered  unto 
death  for  us,  and  His  blood  poured  out,  and  thus 
our  memory  is  ever  kept  fresh.”  As  a  repre¬ 
sentative  Latin  author,  Thomas  Aquinas  may  be 
quoted.  Commenting 91  upon  “in  meant  com- 
memorationem’’  the  Vulgate  equivalent  of  “in 
remembrance  of  me,”  he  rightly  expounds  the 
phrase  as  “namely,  in  memory  of  my  Passion.”  92 
With  this  agree  the  Greek  Liturgies,93  the  Roman 
Canon  Missae ,94  and  our  own  Book  of  Common 
Prayer. 

A  Comparison  of  Prayer  Book  Teaching 
with  the  Foregoing.  It  may  be  of  advantage 
at  this  point  to  turn  from  the  Epistle  for  a  brief 
space,  and  endeavor  to  bring  together  the  pass¬ 
ages  in  the  Prayer  Book  which  have  a  bearing 
upon  the  subject,  so  as  to  compare  its  teaching 
with  that  of  St.  Paul.  The  italics  in  the  follow- 

80  dtvatxt[xvtoy.6pLs0a.  Note  the  ”  scilicet,  in  memoriam 

passive.  is  a  passive  meae  passionis. 

verbal  noun,  formed  from  M  tocvCiv  ^.e^v^evot, 
this  verb.  “We  therefore,  recalling  to 

81  in  Pauli  Epp.,  Vol.  I,  p.  mind.” 

84  Unde  et  memores. 


457- 


24 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


ing  citations  are,  needless  to  say,  our  own.  In 
the  Longer  Exhortation  95  we  are  told  that  “to 
the  end  that  we  should  always  remember  the 
exceeding  great  love  of  our  Master,  and  only 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  thus  dying  for  us,  and  the 
innumerable  benefits  which  by  his  precious  blood- 
shedding  he  hath  obtained  for  us;  he  hath  insti¬ 
tuted  and  ordained  holy  mysteries,  as  pledges  of 
his  love,  and  for  a  continual  remembrance  of  his 
death,  to  our  great  and  endless  comfort.”  If  to 
anyone  there  be  the  slightest  uncertainty  as  to 
whether  the  latter  italicized  phrase  is  to  be  taken 
objectively  or  subjectively,  all  possible  doubt  is 
removed  by  comparing  it  with  the  former.  In 
the  Canon  96  we  are  told  that  our  Lord  on  the 
cross  “made  there  (by  his  one  oblation  of  him¬ 
self  once  offered)  a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient 
sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction,  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world.”  We  should  note  how  the 
compilers  of  the  Prayer  Book  have  almost  gone 
out  of  their  way  here,  in  their  effort  to  heap  term 
upon  term,  and  so  to  emphasize  what  they  con¬ 
ceive  to  be  the  finality  of  Christ’s  offering.  Why, 
in  their  judgment,  was  the  Eucharist  instituted? 

95  P.  230.  Mp.  235. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


25 


At  once  they  proceed  to  tell  us.  Our  Lord,  they 
affirm,  “did  institute,  and  in  his  holy  Gospel  com¬ 
mand  us  to  continue  [here  is  brought  out  the 
force  of  the  present  tense  of  the  Greek  equiva¬ 
lent  for  ‘do’],  a  perpetual  memory  of  that  his 
precious  death  and  sacrifice,  until  his  coming 
again:  for  in  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed, 
he  took  Bread;  and  when  he  had  given  thanks, 
he  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  saying, 
Take,  eat,  this  is  my  Body,  which  is  given  for 
you;  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise, 
after  supper,  he  took  the  Cup;  and  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink 
ye  all  of  this;  for  this  is  my  Blood  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  is  shed  for  you,  and  for  many, 
for  the  remission  of  sins :  Do  this ,  as  oft  as  ye 
shall  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.” 

We  note,  first,  that  this  section  of  the  Canon 
is  purely  recitative.  It  is  at  once  the  solemn  read¬ 
ing  of  our  charter  to  God  in  the  presence  of  the 
assembly,  and  the  giving  glory  to  Him  for  so 
great  a  legacy  of  His  Son,  which  declares  our 
right  to  do  what  we  are  about  to  do.  Then  it 
should  be  observed  that  the  account  of  the  Insti¬ 
tution  is  based  upon  I  Cor.  xi,  with  which  are 


26 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


“conflated”  various  phrases  from  the  Synoptists. 
Third,  that  “memory,”  as  the  connective  particle 
“for”  unambiguously  reveals,  is  defined  as  mean¬ 
ing  “in  remembrance  of  me.” 

The  Anamnesis.  Catching  up  the  thought 
of  this  last  phrase,  as  in  the  Unde  et  memores  of 
the  West,  and  the  “Wherefore  calling  to  mind” 
of  the  East,  the  priest  continues:  “Wherefore, 
O  Lord  and  heavenly  Father,  according  to  the 
institution  of  thy  dearly  beloved  Son  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  we,  thy  humble  servants,  do  cele¬ 
brate  and  make  here  before  thy  Divine  Majesty, 
with  these  thy  holy  gifts,  which  we  now  offer 
unto  thee,  the  memorial  thy  Son  hath  commanded 
us  to  make;  having  in  remembrance  his  blessed 
passion  and  precious  death,”  etc.  Here  again 
“memorial”  is  made  clear  by  the  phrase  “ having 
in  remembrance,”  and  not  “putting  in  remem¬ 
brance.” 

Meaning  of  “These  Thy  Holy  Gifts.” 
But  what  is  the  meaning  of  “these  thy  holy  gifts, 
which  we  now  offer  unto  thee?”  The  words — 
save  for  the  insertion  of  “which  we  now  offer 
unto  thee”  in  the  Scottish  Book,  from  which  our 
Canon  is  taken — come  ultimately,  in  their  Eng- 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


27 


lish  form,  from  the  Canon  of  1549,  which  reads 
simply  “we  .  .  .  make  .  .  .  with  these  thy  holy 
gifts,  the  memorial.  .  .  .”  And  the  source  of 
the  last  is  the  traditional  Latin  rite  according 
to  the  Use  of  Sarum.  In  the  Latin  Canon  the 
passage  reads:  “We  offer  unto  thy  most  excel¬ 
lent  Majesty,  of  thy  gifts  and  favors,91  a  pure 
Sacrifice,98  a  holy  Sacrifice,  an  immaculate  Sacri¬ 
fice,  the  holy  Bread  of  eternal  life,  and  the  Cup 
of  everlasting  salvation.”  Here  quite  clearly  the 
thought  is  of  the  offering  up  of  Christ;  for  mere 
bread  could  hardly  be  described  as  Hostiam  im- 
maculatam,  and  in  any  case  the  “words  of  institu¬ 
tion,”  which  by  Latin  teaching  constitute  the 
“form”  of  consecration,  have  already  been  said. 
How  entirely  different  is  the  thought  in  our  own 
Book!  Here  is  no  hint  of  offering  an  “immacu¬ 
late  Sacrifice,”  which  in  the  “Supplices  Te}>  of 
the  Latin  rite  that  almost  immediately  follows,  is 
asked  “to  be  carried  by  the  hands  of  thy  holy 
angel  to  thy  altar  on  high.”  The  whole  point  of 
view  is  other.  No  prayer  whatever  has  as  yet 
been  said  over  the  gifts.  The  bread  and  wine 
are  here  solemnly  set  aside  and  offered  to  God 

eT  de  tuis  donis  ac  datis.  98  Hostiam. 


28 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


for  the  prayer  which  in  a  moment  is  to  be  made 
over  them.  The  “memorial”  which  we  are  mak¬ 
ing — the  term  is  obviously  intended  as  the  equiva¬ 
lent  of  St.  Paul’s  anamnesis,  the  meaning  of 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  “recollection” — is 
quite  clearly  explained  in  the  next  clause  as  “hav¬ 
ing  in  remembrance  his  blessed  passion  and 
precious  death.”  The  Invocation  then  follows, 
that  God  will  “vouchsafe  to  bless  and  sanctify, 
with  thy  Word"  and  Holy  Spirit,  these  thy  gifts 
and  creatures  of  bread  and  wine” — surely  an 
otiose  proceeding,  if  they  have  been  already  con¬ 
secrated  !  Then  once  more  is  affirmed  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  Eucharist:  “that  we,  receiving  them 
according  to  thy  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ’s 
holy  institution,  in  remembrance  of  his  death  and 
passion }  may  be  partakers  of  his  most  blessed 
Body  and  Blood.”  In  the  same  way,  when  the 
communicant  is  given  the  hallowed  bread  and 
wine,  he  is  told  to  take  them  “in  remembrance 
that  Christ  died  for  thee” :  “in  remembrance 
that  Christ’s  blood  was  shed  for  thee.”  So  in 
the  two  Exhortations  on  p.  240ft.  we  are  told 

89  For  the  Invocation  of  the  Prayer  Book,”  ed.  by  Words- 
Logos,  cf.  “Bishop  Serapion’s  worth,  p.  45f. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


29 


that  “the  most  comfortable  Sacrament  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ”  is  “to  be  .  .  .  re¬ 
ceived  in  remembrance  of  his  meritorious  Cross 
and  Passion”:  that  it  is  our  “duty  to  receive  the 
Communion  in  remembrance  of  the  sacrifice  of 
his  death,  as  he  himself  hath  commanded.”  The 
Catechism,  which  in  this  section  is  probably  the 
work  of  Bishop  Overall,100  carries  on  the  same 
thought  when  it  asks:  “Why  was  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Lord’s  Supper  ordained?”  and  answers: 
“For  the  continual  remembrance  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  of  the  benefits  which 
we  receive  thereby.”  In  the  lighter  type  of  dog¬ 
matic  manual  it  is  often  affirmed  that  “remem¬ 
brance”  has  here  an  objective  sense,  as  though  it 
signified  “putting  God  in  mind”  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  death  of  Christ.  Such  writers  should 
recall  that  on  this  hypothesis,  the  Eucharist  is 
also  offered,  according  to  the  text,  to  put  Him  in 
mind  “of  the  benefits  which  we  receive  thereby” : 
which  is  absurd. 

In  What  Sense  the  Prayer  Book  Teaches 
a  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  It  is  thus  clear  that 

100  Cf.  Procter  and  Frere,  of  Common  Prayer,”  pp. 
‘‘A  New  History  of  the  Book  600 n,  602 n. 


30 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


in  the  Prayer  Book  there  is  neither  hint  nor  sug¬ 
gestion  of  offering  to  God  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  Eucharist  much  sacrificial  language. 
The  officiant  is  again  and  again  referred  to  as 
“priest,”  and  in  the  Office  of  Institution  the  place 
of  celebration  becomes  an  “altar.”  What  is 
offered  by  the  priest  at  this  altar?  According  to 
the  Prayer  Book  he  presents  at  this  service,  as 
representative  of  the  people,  more  than  one  obla¬ 
tion.  Thus  after  offering  to  God  the  alms,  in 
accordance  with  the  rubric,  he  prays  as  follows : 
“We  humbly  beseech  thee  most  mercifully  to 
accept  our  alms  and  oblations,  and  to  receive 
these  our  prayers,  which  we  offer  unto  thy  Divine 
Majesty.”  Probably  “oblations”  here  means  the 
people’s  offerings  of  whatever  kind,  other  than 
money.101  In  former  times,  e.g.,  the  parishioners 
brought  and  presented  the  bread  and  wine  for  the 
service,  a  custom  which  has  long  since  become 
obsolete.  But  the  term,  like  others  elsewhere, 
has  survived.  Besides  the  alms  and  prayers,  the 
priest,  as  we  saw  above,  later  on  solemnly  offers 
the  “gifts”  of  bread  and  wine,  ere  making  over 

101  Cf.  Brightman,  “The  English  Rite,”  Vol.  I,  p.  civf. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


31 


them  the  prayer  of  blessing.  Before  concluding 
the  Prayer  of  Consecration,  he  beseeches  God 
“mercifully  to  accept  this  our  sacrifice  of  praise 
and  thanksgiving.”  The  Prayer  Book  here 
teaches,  that  is,  that  in  this  service  we  do  offer 
a  sacrifice,  the  content  of  which  is  praise  and 
thanksgiving.  Compare  e.g.y  Heb.  xiii,  10,  15: 
“We  have  an  altar.  .  .  .  Through  Him  then  let 
us  offer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise  [/.<?.,  a  sacrifice 
which  consists  of  praise :  genitive  of  definition] 
to  God  continually,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  lips  which 
make  confession  to  his  name.”  Or  Ps.  1,  23 : 
“Whoso  offereth  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving 
glorifieth  me.”  The  two  thoughts  are  “con¬ 
flated”  in  our  Prayer  Book.  So  for  the  newly 
instituted  clergyman  the  prayer  is  made  that  God 
will  “be  graciously  pleased  to  bless  the  ministry 
and  service  of  him  who  is  now  appointed  to  offer 
the  sacrifices  of  prayer  and  praise  to  thee  in  this 
house.”  Again  in  the  Eucharist  the  priest,  on 
behalf  of  himself  and  all  his  people,  makes  still 
another  sacrificial  offering,  based  upon  the  words 
of  Rom.  xii,  1.  “And  here  we  offer  and  present 
unto  thee,  O  Lord,  our  selves,  our  souls  and 
bodies,  to  be  a  reasonable,  holy,  and  living  sacri- 


32 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


fice  unto  thee.”  And  he  confesses  finally,  with 
reference  to  all  that  in  this  service  he  has  offered 
up  to  God — alms,  “oblations,”  prayers,  the  gifts 
of  bread  and  wine,  indeed  the  whole  sacrifice  of 
praise  and  thanksgiving  in  which  he  and  the 
people  have  been  engaged — that  “although  we 
are  unworthy  to  offer  unto  thee  any  sacrifice;  yet 
we  beseech  thee  to  accept  this  our  bounden  duty 
and  service;  not  weighing  our  merits,  but  par¬ 
doning  our  offences.” 

Thus  there  is  abundant  justification  for  calling 
the  Eucharistic  service  in  the  Prayer  Book  sacri¬ 
ficial.  Only  let  us  be  sure  what  we  mean  when 
we  use  the  term,  and  that  it  be  devoid  of  any 
equivocal  connotation.  All  worship  is  sacrificial. 
That  of  the  Eucharist  differs  from  other  sacri¬ 
fices  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  not  at  all  in 
kind;  and  in  degree  only  because  we  concentrate 
there  in  our  offering  all  that  we  have  and 
are. 

Summary  of  purpose  of  Eucharist,  accord- 
int  to  I  Cor.  xi.  Coming  back  to  St.  Paul,  it 
is  clear  that  the  meaning  he  intended  to  convey  by 
the  sentence  which  our  English  Bible  translates 
“This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,”  is  as  follows: 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


33 


“Continue  to  perform 102  this  action 103  which 
you  have  just  seen  me  perform.  That  is,  thus 
take  a  loaf,  offer  over  it  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving, 
break  it  and  eat  it,  for  the  purpose  of  104  calling 
me  affectionately  105  to  mind.”  This  was  the  pur¬ 
pose,  according  to  the  Apostle,  for  which  Christ 
instituted  the  Eucharist.  There  is  no  thought 
here,  direct  or  indirect,  of  its  being  sacrificial  in 
character.  It  was  instituted  to  “keep  in  mind,” 
not  to  “put  in  mind.” 

Source  of  St.  Paul’s  words.  The  immedi¬ 
ate  source  of  the  command  here  attributed  to 
Christ  is  naturally  speculative.  But  that  within 
fifteen  or  twenty  years  of  His  death  there  had 
originated  the  utterly  unhistorical  tradition  that 
Jesus  had  instituted  and  commanded  the  con¬ 
tinuance  of  this  meal  when  in  fact  He  did  nothing 
of  the  kind,  is  to  the  present  writer  unbelievable. 
When  tangible  evidence,  as  distinct  from  what 
still  appears  to  be  subjective,  highly  rarefied,  and 
too  often  a  priori  supposition,  is  produced;  and 
when  we  know  a  good  deal  more  about  the  Mys¬ 
tery  Cults  than  we  do  at  present,  we  shall  be  able 

10axoietTs:  present  tense.  104  d?  expressing  purpose. 

102touto:  neuter.  loa  eyirjv,  intensive. 


34 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


to  determine  judicially  whether  the  words  are  a 
corruption  of  the  first  fiften  years  of  the  Church’s 
life;  and  how  far,  if  at  all,  St.  Paul’s  alleged 
sacramentalism  is  the  result  of  his  Graeco- 
Roman  environment.  Till  then,  with  a  goodly 
number  of  modern  Christian  scholars,  we  may 
be  pardoned  for  believing  them  to  be  genuine 
words  of  Christ. 

The  Cup  Contained  Fermented  Grape 
Juice.  An  interval  appears  to  have  elapsed  be¬ 
tween  the  blessing  of  the  bread  and  the  cup.  It 
was  “after  the  supping”  106  that  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner  also  107  He  took  the  cup,  i.e.,  offered  over  it 
the  same  or  a  similar  thanksgiving.  While  we  do 
not  certainly  know  whether  the  loaf  contained 
panary  ferment,  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that 
the  cup  contained  fermented  grape  juice,  to  which, 
probably,  in  accordance  with  Jewish  custom,  a 
little  water  had  been  added.  That  the  wine  was 
fermented  is  certain  for  the  following  reason. 
The  latest  possible  date  for  the  Spring  festival  of 
Passover  is  two  or  three  months  earlier  than  the 
earliest  known  date  for  the  ripening  of  the  grapes 

108  txeTa  t b  Sscxv^aat:  cf.  107  waauTox;  xah 

the  Canon  Missae,  “postquam 
coenatum  est.,> 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


35 


in  Palestine.  Therefore  the  Jerusalem  host  could 
not  have  secured  “unfermented”  grape  juice  from 
the  current  year’s  harvest,  and  hence  he  must 
have  used  grape  juice  from  the  crop  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  Autumn  at  least.  But  fermentation  is  a 
bacteriological  process,  which  in  exposed  juices 
begins  almost  immediately,  and  we  know  that  the 
Palestinian  Jew  had  no  knowledge  of  antisepsis. 
There  was  but  one  way  for  him  to  prevent  the 
fresh  grape  juice  from  becoming  vinegar.  And 
that  was  to  seal  it  hermetically,  the  result  being 
that  ere  long  it  became  a  true  intoxicating  wine. 
One  recalls  a  brief  parable  of  our  Lord  108  which 
is  germane  to  the  subject.  “No  man  putteth 
fresh  ‘wine’  into  old  wine  skins :  if  otherwise,  the 
wine  will  burst  the  skins,  and  the  wine  perisheth, 
and  the  skins.  But  fresh  ‘wine’  must  be  put  into 
new  wine  skins.” 

May  Unfermented  Grape  Juice  Be  Used 
in  THE  Cup?  But  is  it  indeed  the  case,  as  the 
guardians  of  Christian  tradition  affirm,  that  a 
minimum  alcoholic  content  is  a  sine  qua  non  to 
the  ‘validity’  of  the  sacrament?  If  so,  is  this  not 
another  way  of  saying  that  the  reality  of  the 
103  Mark  ii,  22. 


36 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


sacrament  is  conditioned  upon  the  degree  of 
bacteriological  reproduction  in  the  grape  juice? 
And  does  anyone,  however  wedded  to  what  he 
conceives  to  be  the  “tradition  of  the  Church,” 
really  believe  this  to  be  the  case?  It  is  a  singular 
anomaly  that  an  exception  to  a  Constitutional 
Amendment  must  be  made,  not  to  satisfy  what 
many  think  are  the  just  claims  of  the  grape 
farmer,  but  out  of  consideration  for  what  in 
reality  are  no  more  than  the  prejudices  of  Chris¬ 
tians.  Let  us  recall  what  has  happened  in  regard 
to  the  bread,  and  then  consider  whether,  pari 
passu,  the  same  may  not  lawfully  be  done  with 
the  cup.  It  is  obvious  that  Christ  Himself  used 
either  a  fermented  or  an  unfermented  loaf,  and 
that  at  some  period  in  the  past  it  was  definitely 
known  which  of  the  two  it  was.  But  it  is  also 
certain  that,  at  an  unknown  date,  individual 
clergymen  began  to  set  aside  His  example,  and 
that  their  practice  was  ultimately  followed  by  all 
others  in  their  half  of  the  Church.  Either  the 
East,  which  uses  fermented  loaves,  or  the  West, 
which  for  centuries  has  ordinarily  employed  un¬ 
fermented  bread,  has  broken  with  His  example. 
And  does  anyone  think  the  worse  of  either,  or 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


37 


suppose  that  on  either  hypothesis  the  “validity” 
of  the  sacrament  is  a  whit  impaired  thereby? 
May  not  the  same  be  done  today  with  “the  fruit 
of  the  vine”  ?  Let  those  who  fear  that  the  use  of 
“unfermented”  grape  juice  (if,  outside  of  a 
biological  laboratory,  there  be  such  a  thing)  will 
cause  a  break  in  the  “tradition  of  the  Church,” 
recall  the  fact  that  Thomas  Aquinas,  the  greatest 
of  the  scholastics,  says  109  that  the  sacrament  may 
lawfully  be  celebrated  with  mustum,  and  that  in 
cases  of  necessity  a  bunch  of  grapes  may  be 
squeezed  into  the  cup  immediately  before  Mass, 
a  practice  which  he  affirms  to  be  ordinarily  pro¬ 
hibited,  not  because  such  grape  juice  is  “unfer¬ 
mented”  (a  point  which  he  does  not  raise  here), 
but  on  account  of  foreign  matter  also  entering 
thereby,110  and  so  making  such  a  custom  normally 
indecens.  Again,  many  states  prohibit  by  law  the 
use  of  the  common  cup;  so  that,  if  living  in  such 
a  state,  every  time  we  use  the  single  cup  at  the 
Eucharist  we  set  at  naught  the  law.  If  on  other 
grounds  the  use  of  individual  cups  be  thought 
desirable,  on  what  theological  basis  can  we  object 

109  Summa  T heologica,  Pars  110  Propter  impuritatem 
Tertia,  Quaes.  LXXIV,  Art.  rnusti. 

5- 


38 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


to  the  practice?  Surely  not  on  the  ground  that 
we  are  violating  the  example  of  Christ;  for  it  is 
certain  that  He  used  a  single  loaf,  yet  most  of 
us  in  the  West  employ  individual  pieces  of  bread. 
Pari  passu ,  may  we  not  do  the  same  in  the  matter 
of  the  cup? 

An  Added  Comment  on  St.  Paul  as  to  the 
Purpose  of  the  Eucharist.  St.  Paul  having 
finished  his  recital  of  the  Institution  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  recorded  its  purpose  as  handed 
down  to  him  from  Christ,  goes  on  to  add  a 
comment  of  his  own.  “For  as  oft  as  ye  eat  this 
loaf  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  do  proclaim  the  Lord’s 
death,111  until  He  come.”  This  expresses  the 
active  side  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.  The  very 
service  itself,  the  Apostle  says,  is  a  verhum  visi- 
bile,  a  “preaching”  of  the  Lord’s  death  in  silent 
ministry  by  the  whole  Church.112 

Meaning  of  “Show  the  Lord’s  Death.” 
Here  again,  however,  acute  discussion  not  infre¬ 
quently  arises.  It  is  often  affirmed  that  the  verb 
employed  by  St.  Paul  means  to  “show  forth”  to 

111  t6v  O&voctov  tou  Kupfou  Scripturarum  omnium  sacra - 

arayyiXkz’ze.  mento  ac  testimonio  effusus 

112  Cf.  Cyprian,  Ep.  63  ad  praedicatur. 

Caecil:  “qui  \_Christi  sanguis ] 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


39 


God  the  Lord’s  death,  in  the  sense  expressed,  for 
instance,  in  the  well  known  hymn : 

We  here  present,  we  here  spread  forth  to  Thee 
That  only  Offering  perfect  in  Thine  eyes, 

The  one,  true,  pure,  immortal  Sacrifice. 

Does  this  verb 113  admit  of  such  a  meaning? 
Certainly  the  Biblical  usage  of  the  term  is  clear. 
In  the  Greek  Old  Testament  it  occurs  only 
twice,114  in  both  instances  in  its  proper  sense  “to 
proclaim  throughout.’’  Thus,  “he  .  .  .  published 
abroad  115  that  the  Jews  had  One  who  fought  for 
them’’:  “he  would  become  a  Jew  .  .  .  publishing 
abroad 116  the  might  of  God.”  In  the  New 
Testament  it  is  found  eighteen  times,  eleven  in 
the  Acts  and  seven  in  St.  Paul’s  Epistles.  In  sev¬ 
enteen  of  the  eighteen  instances  no  one  would  have 
any  doubt  whatever  as  to  its  meaning.  Two  illus¬ 
trations  will  perhaps  be  sufficient.  “These  men, 
being  Jews,  do  exceedingly  trouble  our  city,  and 
set  forth  117  customs  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  us 
to  receive.”  118  “This  Jesus,  whom  I  proclaim  119 

113  y.axayy6Xkete.  -  110  xaTayy^XXovra. 

114  2  Macc.  viii,  36,  ix,  17 —  117  xaTaYYeXXouatv. 

in  Prov.  xvi,  5  it  is  a  "variant.  lwActs  xvi,  20,  21. 

115  Yt<xxy]yysX'k5v.  119  wzccyyiTJ.ai. 


40 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


unto  you,  is  the  Christ.”  120  Is  there  any  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  verb  has  not  the  same  con¬ 
notation  in  this  instance  that  it  possesses  in  the 
other  seventeen?  If  in  this  passage  St.  Paul  had 
desired  to  teach  the  Corinthians  that  in  the 
Eucharist  a  sacrifice  was  offered  to  God,  why  did 
he  not  plainly  say  so?  On  six  other  occasions  he 
uses  this  verb — twice  in  this  very  letter  121 — as 
meaning  “to  announce,  declare,  promulgate, 
make  known,  proclaim,  publish.”  Could  the 
Corinthians  possibly  have  imagined  that  he  meant 
it  to  be  understood  in  an  entirely  different  sense 
in  xi,  26?  His  epistles,  as  has  been  said,  are  by 
no  means  destitute  of  sacrificial  terminology.122 
Why  is  such  language  not  used  of  the  Eucharist? 
Writing  to  the  Romans,  he  tells  the  Church 
there  123  that  he  is  a  sacrificing  priest  standing  at 
the  altar  of  God:124  but  the  sacrifice  which  he 
offers  is  not  the  Eucharist,  but  the  Gentile 
Church.  It  is  said,  however,  that  while  the  verb 
in  this  context  may  rightly  be  translated  by  “pro¬ 
claim,”  that  “proclaim”  here  means  to  proclaim  to 

120  Acts  xvii,  3.  123  Rom.  xv,  1 6. 

121  ii,  i,  ix,  14.  m  lepoupyouvTa  Tb  euayydXtov 

122  e.g.  0ua(a,  xpoa^opd:,  bapuj  tou  ©sou,  Yva  y4v T)Tai  rj  xpoa<popa 
eutoBfocq,  lepoupy^w  and  the  like.  xtov  eOvwv  euxpbabsy/roq. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


41 


God }  and  so  to  “offer.”  Is  it  not  obvious  that 
such  an  assumption  is  wholly  gratuitous,  and  that 
not  only  is  there  not  a  single  shred  of  evidence 
wherewith  to  support  it,  but  that  every  bit  of 
available  evidence  flatly  contradicts  it?  “Pro¬ 
claim”  and  “offer”  are  not  synonyms.  Perhaps  a 
reverse  illustration  will  make  this  clear.  Thus  it 
would  hardly  be  intelligible  to  translate  St.  Mat¬ 
thew  v,  23,  “If,  therefore,  thou  proclaimest 125 
thy  gift  at  the  altar,”  etc.  The  verb  used  in  this 
last  passage  is  an  exceedingly  common  sacrificial 
term,  which  is  also  frequently  employed  with  a 
slightly  different  prefix.126  The  two  together  are 
found  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament  with  which 
St.  Paul  was  so  familiar,  more  than  three  hundred 
times.  Why  did  he  not  employ  some  such  term 
here,  instead  of  a  word  which  in  no  other  Biblical 
instance  has  the  meaning  of  offering  to  God,  but 
always  of  proclaiming  to  men?  Must  we  not 
inevitably  conclude  it  was  because  the  thought  of 
the  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice  was  not  present  to  his 
mind? 

Is  I  Cor.  x,  14-22  Sacrificial?  “But,”  it  is 
replied,  “granted  that  there  are  no  sacrificial 

126  xpoaipifpflq.  128  dvacpipa. 


42 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


references  in  chapter  xi;  his  language  in  chapter 
x  is  so  clear  as  to  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  as  to 
remove  all  ambiguity  whatever  from  his  belief 
and  teaching.”  To  this  section,127  then,  let  us 
address  ourselves.  From  it  we  should  also  gain 
some  light  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  sayings  in 
chapter  xi,  “This  is  my  body”;  “this  cup  is  the 
new  covenant  in  my  blood.” 

Summary  of  the  Affirmative  Argument. 
The  argument  of  those  who  believe  that  St.  Paul 
is  here  treating  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice 
runs  somewhat  as  follows.  The  Apostle  states 
that  the  heathen  festivals  were  sacrifices  offered 
to  demons,  and  he  therefore,  of  course,  quite 
clearly  implies  that  the  place  on  which  they  were 
offered  was  an  altar.  In  the  next  verse  he  calls 
this  altar  a  “table,”  as  being  the  place  where  the 
offered  sacrifice  is  afterwards  partaken  of  by  the 
communicants.  Over  against  this  table  or  altar 
of  demons  he  sets  “the  table  of  the  Lord,”  affirm¬ 
ing  the  impossibility  of  the  same  man  communi¬ 
cating  at  both.  Therefore  the  table  of  the  Lord 
must  also  be  an  altar,  and  the  Christian  Eucharist 
a  sacrifice;  for  otherwise  there  would  be  no  object 

137 


x,  14-22. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


43 


in  his  reference  to  the  heathen  and  Jewish  serv¬ 
ices  as  sacrifices.  His  argument,  in  fact,  may 
justly  be  said  to  break  down,  unless  the  “table” 
in  the  one  instance  bears  the  same  connotation  as 
the  “table”  in  the  other.  Or  as  a  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  writer  puts  it:  “the  Apostle  sets  altar  against 
altar,  sacrifice  against  sacrifice,  Communion 
against  Communion.” 

St.  Paul  is  Here  Discussing  Communion; 
the  Question  of  Sacrifice  is  Extraneous. 
Now  we  venture  to  suggest  that  the  line  of 
thought  above  rests  upon  a  misconception  of 
what  St.  Paul  is  endeavoring  to  emphasize 
throughout  this  entire  section.  “Flee  from 
idolatry”  is  the  warning  running  right  through 
this  chapter;  a  subject,  indeed,  which  in  one  way 
or  another  he  has  been  alluding  to  since  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  chapter  viii.  In  chapter  x,  14-22, 
he  is  illustrating  one  terrible  evil  which  dalliance 
with  idolatry  in  his  judgment  involves — com¬ 
munion  with  demons.  The  whole  point  of  his 
argument  is,  we  venture  to  think,  not  whether 
the  worshipper  at  a  religious  feast  makes  an 
offering  or  assists  in  a  sacrifice — that  lies  en¬ 
tirely  outside  his  argument,  as  it  appears  possible 


44 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


to  show — but  that  a  participant  in  a  sacred  meal 
ipso  facto  comes  into  union  with  his  deity, 
whether,  as  in  case  of  the  Jewish  festal  services, 
with  Jehovah:  in  the  idol  feasts,  with  demons; 
or  in  the  Christian  Eucharist,  with  Christ.  The 
key-word  of  the  whole  section,  that  is,  is  com¬ 
munion.  The  Eucharist  is  taken  as  the  starting 
point.  The  reminder  of  the  relation  established 
by  that  feast  is  designed  to  bring  home  to  the 
Corinthian  “men  of  sense”  128  the  relation  set  up 
by  participation  in  the  other.  “The  cup  of  the 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  fellowship  in 
the  blood  of  the  Christ?  The  loaf  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  a  fellowship  in  the  body  of  the 
Christ?”  129  This  truth  of  the  identification  of 
participant  and  Deity  in  a  sacred  meal  is  further 
illustrated  by  a  reference  to  ancient  Israel.130 
Israel  after  the  flesh,  as  well  as  the  Israel  of 
God,  had,  in  their  degree,  a  Communion.  When 
the  former  partook  of  their  sacrificial  feasts  they 
became  communicants  of  the  altar,  they  appro- 

138  x,  15,  “as  to  men  of  sense  129  x>  jg 

(9pov([xoc<;:  ‘wise  men’  would  130  v  jg 

require  0090 eg.)  I  speak;  be 
yourselves  the  judges  of  what 
I  affirm.” 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul  45 

priated  the  covenant  blessings  of  Jehovah,  they 
partook  of  all  the  gifts  for  which  that  Jewish 
altar  stood.  But  this  fact  of  Communion,  in  the 
judgment  of  St.  Paul,  is  also  true  of  idol  feasts, 
to  which  truth  all  along  he  has  been  leading  up. 
Demons,  he  affirms,  are  in  reality  worshipped 
at  these  festivals,  and  with  demons  the  com¬ 
municants  are  brought  into  relation.  Not  in¬ 
deed,  that  an  h/o/-sacrifice  has  reality,  or  that  an 
idol  is  anything  in  the  world.  This  latter  he  has 
expressly  denied  already.  “No,  but  what  the 
Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  demons  and 
not  to  God;  and  I  would  not  that  you  should  be 
communicants  of  the  demons.”  131  In  fact,  the 
position  of  those  Christians  who  do  communicate 
at  such  feasts  is  utterly  untenable.  “Ye  cannot 
drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  demons : 
ye  cannot  partake  of  the  table  of  the  Lord  and 
the  table  of  demons.”  132  To  attempt  to  do  both 
is  to  “provoke  the  Lord  to  jealousy.”  Such 
double  dealing,  such  dallying  with  idolatry  on 
the  part  of  Christian  men,  is  to  dare  the  Lord’s 
displeasure,  to  suppose  themselves  stronger  than 
He.”  133 


131 


V. 


20. 


132 


y. 


21. 


133 


v. 


22. 


46  The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 

Now  it  is  noticeable  that  St.  Paul  does  not  say, 
“Ye  cannot  offer  sacrifice  a f.  the  altar  of  the  Lord 
and  the  altar  of  demons.”  But  why  does  he  not 
phrase  his  sentence  in  some  such  way?  After 
considering  attentively  the  whole  trend  of  his 
argument  in  this  section,  must  we  not  answer  that 
it  is  because  it  is  the  question  of  Communion,  of 
fellowship,  and  not  of  sacrifice  or  non-sacrifice 
which  he  is  comparing?  There  is  a  quality  com¬ 
mon  to  all  three  services  which  he  selects  and 
isolates  from  any  other  attribute  they  may  share. 
On  this  common  quality  he  bases  his  argument. 
That  the  thoughtful  and  impartial  reader,  as  he 
follows  step  by  step  the  Apostle’s  reasoning,  will 
affirm  this  quality  to  be  that  of  sacrifice  and  not 
communion,  or  of  communion  plus  sacrifice,  we 
do  not  believe.  St.  Paul  has  quite  obviously 
received  information  that  the  Corinthians  had 
been  attendants  and  communicants  at  the  heathen 
religious  festivals.  He  desires  to  break  this  off 
absolutely.  Therefore  he  proceeds  to  show  that 
to  partake  of  a  religious  meal,  whether  heathen, 
Jewish,  or  Christian,  really  brings  the  partaker 
into  relation  with  the  being  who  is  worshipped. 
In  the  Jewish  feast,  the  recipient  through  com- 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


47 


municating  appropriates  the  sacredness  of  the 
Jewish  altar:  in  the  heathen  feast,  likewise 
through  communicating,  he  comes  into  union  with 
the  demons :  in  the  Eucharist,  through  communi¬ 
cating,  he  has  “communion  with  the  body  and  the 
blood  of  the  Christ.”  Is  it  not  plain  that  the 
characteristic  which  the  Apostle  isolates  and 
compares  is  solely  that  of  communion?  Whether 
one,  or  two,  or  all  were  also  sacrificial  is  for  his 
present  purpose  indifferent:  it  lies  outside  the 
object  of  his  argument.  It  would  seem,  there¬ 
fore,  that  to  assume  from  this  section,  either  that 
he  taught  directly,  or  implied  indirectly,  that  be¬ 
cause  two  services  of  communion  happened  at 
the  same  time  to  be  sacrificial,  therefore  the  third 
service  was  sacrificial  also,  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
That  point  is  not  raised  in  the  section  under  dis¬ 
cussion.  So  far  as  his  words  here  tell  us  anything 
one  way  or  another,  the  Eucharist  might  be  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice  either  in  the  medieval  or 
Tridentine  sense,  or  it  might  be  no  sacrifice  at  all. 
To  show  that  it  is  a  fellowship  or  communion 
with  our  Lord,  and  that  therefore  Christian  men 
are  absolutely  debarred  from  that  other  service 
which  he  believes  to  be  a  communion  with 


48 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


demons,  is  his  one  and  only  purpose.  The  truth 
is,  the  sacrificial  nature  of  the  Eucharist  was  an 
alien  thought  to  St.  Paul  as  to  other  New  Testa¬ 
ment  writers.  The  only  kind  of  altar  which 
Christians  of  this  period  deemed  themselves  to 
possess,  was  that  referred  to  in  Heb.  xiii,  io;  and 
it  is  upon  such  an  altar  that  the  writer  exhorts 
“through  Him  let  us  offer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise 
to  God  continually,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  lips  which 
make  confession  to  his  name.”134 

Summary  of  Purpose  of  Eucharist.  We 
have  seen  that  the  purpose  of  the  Eucharist,  ac¬ 
cording  to  St.  Paul,  is  that  we  may  ever  keep 
alive  in  our  hearts  by  partaking  of  the  loaf  and 
cup  the  meaning  of  Christ’s  life  and  death:  and 
also,  that  the  action  itself  constitutes  a  veritable 
“preaching”  of  His  death.  Can  we  hope  to  gain 
some  meaning  of  the  words  “this  is  my  body: 
this  cup  is  the  New  Covenant  in  my  blood”? 

Meaning  of  “This  Is  My  Body”;  “This  Is 
My  Blood.”  Let  us  first  be  sure  what  they  do 
not  mean.  When  Christ  uttered  them,  He  was 
reclining  in  His  physical  body  in  the  upper  room 
at  Jerusalem,  with  every  physiological  function 

134  Heb.  x,  15;  cf.  for  a  similar  altar  Rom.  xv,  16,  I  Pet.  ii  5. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


49 


of  his  human  organism  in  esse.  Has  any  thought¬ 
ful  Christian  ever  seriously  imagined,  either  that 
He  gave  to  the  Apostles  a  portion  of  His  very 
flesh  and  blood,  or  that  then  and  there  He  trans¬ 
muted  His  body  into  “Spirit,”  restoring  it  to 
flesh  again  at  the  conclusion  of  the  meal?  And 
is  another  hypothesis  possible,  if  the  words  are  to 
be  understood  literally?  Discarding,  then,  such 
Western  literalism,  as  unthinkable:  and  stating 
frankly  that  as  yet  we  do  not  know  enough  either 
of  Palestinian  or  of  Graeco-Roman  background 
to  affirm  with  certainty  the  exact  origin  of  the 
metaphor,  and  therefore  precisely  what  Christ 
intended  to  convey  by  the  words,  or  exactly  what 
meaning  they  would  have  to  St.  Paul :  it  is  yet 
possible  from  this  letter  to  gain  at  least  some  idea 
of  their  general  significance.  Passing  by,  as  in  a 
brief  essay  such  as  this  one  must  do,  a  discussion 
of  the  obvious  reference  to  “the  blood  of  the 
covenant,”  135  we  can  see  from  St.  Paul’s  words 
in  x,  16-17  the  essential  meaning  of  the  language. 
To  partake  of  the  Eucharist  is  to  revive  fellow¬ 
ship  with  Christ;  and,  in  Him,  with  one  another. 
“The  cup  of  the  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not 


135  Ex.  xxiv,  8. 


50 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


a  fellowship  136  with  the  blood  of  the  Christ? 
The  loaf  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  fellowship 
with  the  body  of  the  Christ?  seeing  that  one 
body,  one  loaf  we  the  many  are :  for  we  all  par¬ 
take  of  the  one  loaf.”  137  “Blood”  and  “body” 
are  obviously  used  symbolically  for  Christ  Him¬ 
self.  “Flesh  and  blood,”  according  to  this 
Apostle,  “cannot  inherit  the  Kingdom  of 
God,”  138  where  Christ  is.  And  let  us  not  employ 
such  terms  as  “spiritual  flesh”  or  “spiritual 
blood,”  which  have  absolutely  no  meaning  to 
anyone  who  pauses  to  think.  “The  Lord  is  the 
Spirit,”  139  writes  St.  Paul  to  this  same  Church 
a  few  months  later,  and  it  is  His  Spirit  with 
whom  our  spirit  comes  into  fellowship  at  this 
solemn  meal.  “He  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is 
one  spirit.”  140 

Was  St.  Paul  a  Sacramentalist?  To  the 


present  writer  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  St. 


130  Kocvwvfa,  the  same  word 
as  in  the  phrase,  “The  fel¬ 
lowship  of  the  Holy  Spirit,” 
in  the  familiar  words  of  the 
Grace.  It  is  found  19  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  of 
which  13  are  in  St.  Paul.  Its 
4  occurrences  in  I  John  i,  3-7, 
will  repay  study.  No  single 


word,  perhaps,  so  perfectly 
expresses  the  early  Christians’ 
relation  to  each  other  and  to 
God  and  Christ. 

137  x,  16,  17. 

138 1  Cor.  xv,  50. 

139 II  Cor.  iii,  16. 

140 1  Cor,  vi,  16. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


51 


Paul  should  be  called  “a  sacramentalist,”  whose 
religious  center  of  gravity  was  the  Eucharist. 
The  evidence  for  such  a  statement  in  reading 
through  his  extant  letters  seems  wholly  lacking. 
He  was  above  all  things  a  mystic,  who,  conscious 
of  the  immediate  and  continuous  presence  of 
Christ  in  his  spirit,  tended  to  be  impatient  of 
any  external  media  designed  to  secure  this  end. 
“I  live;  yet  no  longer  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me: 
and  the  life  which  I  now  live  in  flesh,  I  live  in 
faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave 
Himself  up  for  me.”  141  Such  a  saying,  which 
in  essence  is  characteristic  of  all  his  writings, 
expresses  the  very  soul  of  his  inner  life.  As 
Burton,  commenting  on  the  words,  admirably 
says:142  “It  is  of  course  the  heavenly  Christ  of 
whom  he  speaks,  who  in  religious  experience  is 
not  distinguishable  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  With 
this  spiritual  being  Paul  feels  himself  to  be 
living  in  such  intimate  fellowship,  by  him  his 
whole  life  is  so  controlled,  that  he  conceives  him 
to  be  resident  in  him,  imparting  to  him  impulse 
and  power,  transforming  him  morally  and  work- 


141  Gal.  ii,  20. 


142  Gal.  in  loc.  (Interna¬ 
tional  Critical  Commentary). 


52 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


ing  through  him  for  and  upon  other  men.”  But 
nowhere  does  he  make  the  consciousness  of  this 
presence  dependent  upon  the  reception  of  the 
Eucharist.  That  the  Apostle  week  by  week  took 
part  in  the  great  meal  of  fellowship  which  held 
so  high  a  place  in  the  lives  of  early  Christians 
we  may  be  sure.  But  it  is  equally  certain  that  he 
conceived  this  service  simply  as  one  way  of 
realizing  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 
The  Lord  whom  he  worshipped,  who  was  “re¬ 
vealed”  143  in  him  at  his  conversion,  he  has  ex¬ 
perienced  continuously  as  a  living  presence  in  his 
soul.  Of  many  later  conceptions  of  the  Eucharist 
he  would  inevitably  have  said,  with  his  great 
successor,144  “it  is  the  Spirit  that  maketh  alive, 
the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.” 

The  Early  Eucharistic  Meal.  It  remains 
now  to  endeavor  to  outline  the  general  character 
of  the  Eucharistic  Meal,  as  celebrated  at  this 
time.  It  was  probably  held  on  every  “first  day 
of  the  week,”  145  and  in  the  evening.146  The 
latter  is  indeed  certain,  both  from  Acts  xx,  7-1 1, 

as  well  as  from  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  mean- 

« 

143  Gal.  i,  15.  145  Cf.  Acts  xx,  7. 

144  John  vi,  63.  146  Ibid. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


53 


ing  “supper”  147  in  I  Cor.  xi,  20.  Christ  had 
instituted  it  in  the  evening,  when  in  the  “acted 
parable”  of  the  broken  bread  and  the  outpoured 
cup  He  had  shown  them  that  His  coming  death 
was  to  be  for  them  a  blessing,  and  it  was  in¬ 
evitable  that  they  should  follow  His  example. 
The  place  would  naturally  be  a  house,  probably 
the  drawing-room  of  a  well-to-do  Christian, 
where  adequate  space  for  so  many  guests  could 
be  secured.  The  central  portion  of  the  service 
was  a  religious  meal  at  which  their  Elder 
Brother  148  would  be  conceived  as  the  invisible 
host,  and  they  themselves  met  together  as  broth¬ 
ers  to  realize  more  deeply  the  new  truth  of  fel¬ 
lowship  with  Him  and  with  one  another.  For 
this  meal,  it  would  seem,  those  who  were  able 
brought  contributions  of  food  and  drink:  and 
inasmuch  as  most  of  the  Corinthian  Christians 
were  very  poor,149  the  well-to-do  brought  por¬ 
tions  for  these  as  well  as  themselves.150  Perhaps 
for  the  very  poor,  many  of  whom  were  slaves,151 
it  was  the  only  real  meal  of  the  day.  While  it 

147  Betxvov.  149 1  Cor.  i,  26. 

148  Cf.  Rom.  viii,  29,  “The  150  xi,  22. 

First-begotten  among  many  151  vii,  21. 
brothers.” 


54 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


was  a  true  supper,  to  satisfy  hunger,152  and  not  a 
mere  ceremonial  partaking  of  food,  its  purpose 
was  vastly  more  than  this.  It  served,  as  has 
been  intimated,  to  bring  together  on  the  plane  of 
equality  “high  and  low,  rich  and  poor,  one  with 
another,”  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood. 
When  all  were  assembled  and  the  meal  begun, 
some  one,  probably  one  of  the  older  members  of 
the  community,  taking  into  his  hands  a  loaf  and 
offering  over  it  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving,  broke 
it  into  sufficient  fragments  for  all  present  to  par¬ 
take.  And  each,  as  he  received  his  fragment,  ate 
it  not  only  with  vivid  recollection  of  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Jesus,  but  with  renewed  conscious¬ 
ness  of  His  abiding  presence.  We  should  like  to 
know  with  certainty  whether  any  Christian  man, 
or  only  certain  officers,  was  empowered  to  bless 
the  loaf  and  the  cup,  but  unfortunately  with  the 
evidence  at  hand,  we  cannot.153  And  it  is  futile 
to  read  back  into  this  letter  the  practice  of  the 
later  Church.  One  can  but  say  that  the  proba¬ 
bilities,  taking  into  account  the  general  context 
of  the  epistle,  favor  the  former,  rather  than  the 

152  xi,  34.  bless  .  .  .  The  loaf  which 

153  “'phg  CUp  #  #  .  which  we  we  break.” 


t The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


55 


latter  conjecture.  At  the  conclusion  of  the 
meal 154  “the  cup  of  the  blessing  which  we  bless” 
was  similarly  partaken  of  by  all.  This  was  per¬ 
haps  followed  by  a  discourse,155  or  “sermon,”  by 
brief  addresses  by  different  members  who  felt  a 
“call”  to  speak,  and  concluded  with  prayer.156 
The  “brothers”  had  renewed  their  fellowship 
with  Christ  and  with  each  other,  and  had  gained 
fresh  strength  wherewith  to  endure  the  burden 
and  heat  of  the  day. 

The  Corinthian  Profanation  of  the 
Eucharist.  But  the  actual  situation  outlined 
in  the  Church  of  Corinth  of  A.D.  55  reveals  a 
sad  falling  away  from  this  ideal.  The  early  zeal 
of  these  emotional  Christians  had  abated;  fac¬ 
tiousness,  the  inveterate  curse  of  later  Greece, 
had  fiercely  flamed  up,  and  the  sense  of  brother¬ 
hood  had  all  but  departed.  The  Eucharist,  with 
the  common  meal  of  which  it  formed  a  part,  was 
indeed  still  observed.  But  its  religious  signifi¬ 
cance  had  disappeared,  and  it  had  become  so  far 
reduced  as  to  be  little  more  than  a  club  supper, 
at  which  profanation,  drunkenness  and  general 
disorder  prevailed. 

154  “After  the  supping/’  xi,  1155  Acts  xx,  7. 

156  Cf.  I  Cor.  xiv,  passim. 


25. 


56 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


Let  us  endeavor  to  reconstruct  the  situation. 
It  would  seem  that  with  the  loss  of  the  sense  of 
brotherhood,  came  a  reluctance  on  the  part  of 
the  prominent  and  well-to-do  to  share  a  common 
meal  with  the  outcast  and  the  slave.  Suppose  we 
imagine  that  on  a  given  day  a  service  has  been 
advertised  for  the  following  Sunday  at  8  P.M., 
in  such  and  such  a  man’s  drawing  room.  To  the 
appointed  place  come  the  leisured  and  prominent 
members,  in  ample  time,  since  their  time  is  their 
own.  And  with  them  they  bring,  not  only  food 
and  drink  for  themselves,  but  enough  of  both  for 
the  poorer  members  as  well,  for  “those  who  have 
not.”  157  The  table  is  made  ready,  the  hour 
arrives,  yet  perhaps  more  than  half  the  congre¬ 
gation,  composed  of  those  whose  time  is  not  their 
own,  have  not  yet  appeared.  “It  is  not  our 
fault,”  say  these  ostensible  Christians:  “the  hour 
was  fully  advertised;  let  us  begin.”  And  they  do 
begin,  begin  with  a  vengeance;  eating  and  drink¬ 
ing  all  that  is  before  them,  making  a  restaurant 
meal  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  which  ends  in  a 
drunken  debauch.158  The  poor  late  comers  find 
the  board  swept,  and  the  “service”  over.  To  say 


157 


XI,  22. 


158 


XI,  21. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


57 


that  St.  Paul  was  indignant  over  the  profanation 
at  so  sacred  a  service  is  to  put  it  mildly.  “In  giv¬ 
ing  you  the  following  charge  I  praise  you  not, 
seeing  that  ye  come  together  not  for  the  better  but 
for  the  worse.”  159  That  underlying  selfishness 
was  the  cause  of  such  factiousness  he  regards  as 
probably  only  too  true.160  Under  such  circum¬ 
stances,  “as  oft  as  ye  come  together  to  the  same 
place,  it  is  not  possible  161  to  eat  a  Lord1  s  Supper, 
for  each  one  is  in  a  hurry  to  get  162  his  own  163 
supper  in  the  eating,  and  (the  result  is  that)  one 
is  hungry  and  the  other  drunk.”  164  If  the  only 
purpose  of  coming  together  be  to  satisfy  physical 
hunger,  surely  that  can  be  done,  and  without 
profanation,  in  your  own  homes.165  “Or  is  it,” 
he  scornfully  asks,  “that  you  treat  the  assembly 
of  God  as  of  no  account  whatever,  and  put  to 
shame  those  that  have  not?”  166  After  showing 
clearly  the  true  significance  of  their  actions,  and 
the  grave  moral  dangers  involved,  a  subject  which 
we  shall  immediately  take  up  for  discussion,  he 

159  v.  17.  placed  here  in  sharpest  con- 

160  v.  18.  trast. 

181  For  this  sense  of  oijx  164  vv.  20,  21. 
eanv  cf.  Heb.  ix,  5.  180  v.  22. 

163  xpoXoc[x@avei.  186  Ibid. 

188  Kupca/cov  and  i'Scov  are 


58  The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 

concludes  with  an  earnest  exhortation.  “Where¬ 
fore,  my  brothers,  when  ye  come  together  to  eat, 
wait  for  one  another”  \  and  forestalling  a  possible 
objection  to  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the 
evening  meal  he  adds:  “and  if  any  be  hungry,  let 
him  eat  at  home  (i.e.}  before  he  starts  out  for 
‘church’),  that  yet  come  not  together  to  judg¬ 
ment.”  167 

Three  Possible  Stages  in  a  Communi¬ 
cant’s  Life.  In  this  section  St.  Paul  enumerates 
three  possible  stages  in  the  life  of  a  communicant, 
characterized  respectively  by  Diakrisis,  Krisis, 
and  Katakrisis.  In  the  first,  which  is  the  normal, 
he  is  to  “put  himself  to  the  proof,”  168  ere  he 
partakes.  The  verb  is  one  frequently  used  of 
scrutinizing  or  of  assaying  metals,  to  determine 
whether  they  are  genuine.  The  prospective 
recipient  is  to  test  himself  as  to  his  purpose  and 
motives  ere  he  partake.  Failure  to  do  this  had 
been  at  least  one  cause  of  the  gross  profanation 
of  the  sacrament  by  the  Corinthians.  But  if  he 
does  this,  he  will  be  thereby  enabled  both  to 
judge  rightly  and  clearly  as  to  himself,169  and 

167  w.  34,  35.  169  v.  31.  st’  Se  eauToO?  5csxp(v- 

188  .  .  .  !aux6v.  opiev. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


59 


when  he  partakes  to  take  a  right  attitude  to¬ 
ward  “the  body,”  170  and  so  “discriminate”  be¬ 
tween  this  service  and  all  other  meals,  which  was 
exactly  what  the  Corinthians  had  failed  to  do. 
While  St.  Paul  is  perhaps  thinking  primarily  of 
the  Lord  when  using  the  term  “the  body”  171 
here,  he  seems  clearly  also  to  include  the  cor¬ 
porate  assembly  of  Christians,  the  unity  and 
brotherhood  of  which  it  was  one  great  purpose  of 
the  meal  to  keep  alive.172  The  Corinthians,  mak¬ 
ing  no  discrimination  between  this  food  and  any 
other,  had  all  but  lost  their  sense  of  corporate 
responsibility. 

Failure  to  follow  the  normal,  St.  Paul  affirms, 
will  bring  upon  the  lax  communicant  “a  judg¬ 
ment,”  173  a  sharp  stroke  designed  to  recall  him 
to  a  realization  of  his  serious  shortcomings.  To 
eat  and  drink  unworthily,  is  to  “be  guilty  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,”  174  i.e.y  “to  outrage 
the  emblem  is  to  outrage  its  original — as  if  one 
should  mock  at  the  Queen’s  picture  or  at  his 

170  v.  29.  (jl'J)  oiay.p(vG>v  rb  aa)[a.a.  one  body,  we  the  many  are, 

171  Omit  ‘of  the  Lord,’  with  for  we  all  partake  of  the 

the  best  MSS.  one  loaf.” 

173  — 

172  Cf.  for  the  thought,  I.  Cor.  v*  29- 

x,  17,  “seeing  that  one  loaf,  174  v,  27. 


6o 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


country’s  flag.”  175  A  serious  epidemic  of  sick¬ 
ness  had  broken  out  in  Corinth,  from  which  many 
members  of  the  Church  were  suffering:  to  the 
Apostle  this  was  a  portion  of  “the  judgment.”  176 
But  it  cannot  be  too  clearly  stated  that  in  St. 
Paul’s  mind  these  “judgments”  were  not  final, 
but  purely  remedial.111  The  deplorable  transla¬ 
tion  of  verse  29  in  the  Authorized  Version, 

“eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,”  has 

# 

probably  done  more  than  all  other  causes  com¬ 
bined  to  keep  people  away  from  the  Eucharist. 
The  third  stage,  of  “condemnation  with  the 
world,”  178  is  the  final  judgment,  should  all  else 
have  failed  to  reform  the  character.  And  so  his 
great  subject  is  brought  to  a  close. 

sj\  jJj 

Underlying  Unity  Among  All  Christians 
as  to  the  Purpose  of  the  Eucharist.  In 
spite  of  all  theoretical  differences  between  Chris¬ 
tians,  is  there  not  an  underlying  unity  of  belief  as 
to  the  essential  significance  of  the  Eucharist? 
Do  not  all  alike  believe  that  its  real  power  lies  in 

175  Findlay  in  loc.  178  v.  31,  Yva  jjlt)  ciiv  Ttp  x6ap.(|> 

178  v.  30.  xaTaxptOw^ev. 

177  Cf.  the  clear  language  of 
v.  32. 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


61 


bringing  us  into  contact  with  a  personal  Christ? 
This  does  not  mean  that  we  fail  to  realize  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  everywhere  in  His  Universe. 

Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit? 

Or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence? 

If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there: 

If  I  make  my  bed  in  Sheol,  behold,  thou  art  there. 

If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning, 

And  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea; 

Even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me, 

And  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me.179 

Nor  do  we  forget  the  promise  of  Christ,  that 
“Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.”  180 
But  at  certain  times,  in  certain  places,  and  under 
certain  psychological  conditions,  we  do  mean  that 
there  is  apt  to  be  greater  recognition  of  that  pres¬ 
ence.  “Why  then,”  asks  Mr.  Emmett,  in  a 
penetrating  essay  on  “The  Psychology  of 
Grace,”  181  “is  there  a  special  presence  of  Christ, 
or  a  special  recognition  of  His  universal  pres¬ 
ence,  in  the  Holy  Communion?  Simply  because 

178  Ps.  cxxxix,  7-10.  181  In  “The  Spirit,”  edited 

180  Mt.  xviii,  20.  by  Canon  Streeter. 


62 


The  Eucharist  in  St.  Paul 


the  whole  rite  is  charged  with  the  associations  of 
His  Personality.  The  words,  the  elements,  the 
acts,  carry  us  back  directly  to  the  supreme  crisis 
of  His  life.  No  one  can  be  present  at  the  rite 
with  a  serious  purpose  without  thinking  vividly 
of  Him.  .  .  .  To  think  earnestly  and  lovingly 
of  Him  is  to  realize  His  presence,  to  be  with 
Him,  to  open  the  heart  to  all  the  influence  which 
comes  from  contact  with  His  Spirit,  to  be  in  Him 
and  He  in  us.” 


Date  Due 

Nil 

41 

20  * 42 

*0  *■* 

Hf&r  „’4S 

w  <5  .  '4 

-T‘ 

& 

*  'T*  '  k/l  ^ 

« 

f) 

*’  .«  ton:#** 


